arXiv:2606.30975cs.AI2026-06

研究智能体调节过程中的历史依赖性,发现过去路径影响当前控制成本。

When Regulation Has Memory: Hysteresis and Control Burden in Artificial Agency

论文配图:When Regulation Has Memory: Hysteresis and Control Burden in Artificial Agency
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 通过模拟自适应不确定性调节,测试控制策略是否受历史路径影响。
  • 相同目标下,上升与下降路径所需调节增益不同,形成可重复的滞后环。
  • 提前调控显著降低控制需求,适合高动态环境下的智能体设计参考。

自适应智能体通常根据其行为表现来评估,但其内部维持稳定所需的调节成本可能隐含增长。在噪声、延迟或需求变化环境下,两个系统虽达到相似状态,但一个可能需要更多校正控制。本文通过计算模型研究这种调节负担是否依赖历史。让人工智能体经历连续的不确定性目标变化,随后反转变化而不重置。结果表明存在明显的历史依赖效应:调节增益随路径形成可重复的滞回环——同一目标在趋近和返回高要求区间时所需控制强度不同。此外,扰动前即进行稳定化调控时,所需自适应增益普遍低于扰动后才恢复的情况。状态一致性度量也显示路径依赖,但控制增益对时机更敏感。核心结论并非前瞻调控导致完全不同的状态,而是以更低的模型控制代价达成类似稳定行为。因此,评估自适应智能体不仅要看其是否保持有序,更应关注其维持秩序所付出的调节成本。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Adaptive agents are usually judged by what they do, but an agent can appear stable while the internal effort required to keep it stable is increasing. This hidden regulatory burden matters for artificial agents operating under noise, delay, or changing demands: two systems may reach similar internal states while one requires much more corrective control to get there. Here, we study whether that burden depends on history. Using a computational model of adaptive uncertainty regulation, we drive an artificial agent through a continuous change in its uncertainty target and then reverse the change without resetting the agent. This creates a simple test for carryover: does the controller respond only to the current target, or does the path by which the agent reached that target still matter? The simulations show a clear history-dependent effect. The adaptive gain required to regulate the agent forms a reproducible hysteresis loop, meaning that the same target can require different levels of control depending on whether the agent is moving toward or returning from a more demanding regime. The timing of regulation also matters. When stabilization is available before disturbance exposure, the agent generally requires less adaptive gain than when it can only recover after disturbance has already acted. The state-level coherence measure also shows path dependence, but the timing effect is much clearer in regulatory gain. The main difference is therefore not that anticipatory regulation produces a completely different state. Rather, it reaches comparable regulated behavior with lower modeled control demand. These results suggest that adaptive agents should be evaluated not only by whether they remain organized, but by how much regulation they must recruit to do so.

智能体调节控制滞回效应

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。